So this is it... or part of it. This is not the Preamble which the Vatican originally proposed in Sep. 2011, nor is it the latest version which Bp Fellay felt "obliged" to reject on the June 13th 2012.
No, this is Bp Fellay's pride and joy of April 16th 2012 which he knew was already approved by the Pope before he even submitted it, although he told us that he didn't know what the Pope's answer would be...
Now we can see why the Pope approved... why it was kept so secret and why discussions should be so easy to begin again after Bp Fellay has played to the gallery at the inconvenient Chapter...
(Source :http://catholique-refractaire.blogspot.fr/2012/06/analyse-de-la-declaration-doctrinale-i.html)

While he was giving a lecture at the Saint Joseph des Carmes school in France on June 5th 2012, Father Niklaus Pflüger read a passage from the doctrinal statement sent by Bishop Fellay to Rome on April 15th. For the first time this text, hitherto kept under the strictest seal of secrecy, was partially revealed by the first assistant of the SSPX. .Even if this is only an extract, it is significant enough to deserve our attention:

“ The whole Tradition of the Catholic faith should be the criterion and guide for understanding the teachings of Vatican II, which, in turn, sheds light upon certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, which are implicitly present in Her, but not yet formulated. The statements of Vatican II and the subsequent Papal Magisterium on the relationship between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian denominations must be understood in light of the whole of Tradition. ”

In this type of docuмent - it is a doctrinal statement - every word counts. Only a line by line analysis can help us to grasp the true scope of such a text, which consists of three main assertions. The first two contain general principles, adapted to a particular case in the third.

1) The entire tradition of the Catholic faith should be the criterion and guide to the understanding of the teachings of Vatican II.

The first assertion is not unrelated to the often repeated request of Archbishop Lefebvre: that the Council be read in light of Tradition. However, are these two expressions really inter-changeable?

On several occasions, the former archbishop of Dakar had made clear what was meant by reading in the light of Tradition:
-   those statements that are in conformity with Tradition should be retained;
-    ambiguous formulas should be interpreted in light of that Tradition;
-   affirmations which are contrary to Tradition should be quite simply rejected.

Such an explanation thus leaves it clear that Archbishop Lefebvre did not consider that every affirmation of Vatican II was a “teaching” of the Church. For indeed, it is simply forbidden for a Catholic soul to reject any teaching of the Church, even if it is not covered by infallibility.

On the contrary, the Declaration (Doctrinal Preamble) does acknowledge as a “teaching” every utterance of Vatican II; it only remains to grasp the “understanding” of them. These words are not neutral. Because a teaching of the Church cannot be questioned, they imply the overall acceptance of conciliar affirmations, while it remains to discover their meaning in order to understand them correctly. The addition of the key for understanding - the whole Tradition of the Catholic Faith - does not detract from this recognition, fundamental to Rome today and fundamentally new in the mouths of officials of the SSPX: the statements of Vatican II, taken all together, are “teachings” of the Church.

This new positioning of the SSPX has not escaped the attention of the Roman counterparts of Bishop Fellay, who stressed the clear change in tone of the Society towards the Council. Their joy found free expression, while those who in conscience cannot accept such a shift in doctrinal attitude could only weep.

This is the same as saying that, according to the Declaration, the problem is not so much the Council itself, but rather the misinterpretations which are made of it. If Benedict XVI had already accustomed us to these hackneyed arguments and tired mantras, we find them for the first time - alas! - in an official statement of the Society of Saint Pius X.

But the worst is yet to come.

2) The novelty of speech stands out even more boldly in the following statement:

“In turn, [Vatican II] sheds light upon certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, which are implicitly present in Her, but not yet formulated.

I suppose that the spiritual sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, provided they have a little memory left, could only be appalled at such a formula. For, while he lived, the founder of the Society used a different language when he penned officially his judgment on the Council, addressed to another prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ottaviani, on December 20th, 1966. The whole letter deserves to be re-read but here is a passage:

“Whereas the Council was preparing itself to be a shining light in today's world - if only those pre-conciliar docuмents in which we find a solemn profession of safe doctrine with regard to modern problems, had been accepted - we can and we must unfortunately state that:
“In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.”

Archbishop Lefebvre then goes into detail:

“The transmission of the jurisdiction of the bishops, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last ends, etc. On all these fundamental points the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous texts of the Council on these truths will henceforward permit doubt to be cast upon them.”

After such a list, what remains of the great conciliar theories? What are the “aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church” which are supposed to be highlighted by Vatican II?  

With all the good will in the world, I confess I cannot find them.  

It is true that the sacramentality of the episcopate was declared for the first time. But even this affirmation, already widely accepted, is seriously obscured by the Council which only mentions it in order to advance a new doctrine on the transmission of episcopal jurisdiction, contrary to the explicit teaching of Pius XII.  “Highlighted” you say? This language is not that of Truth, nor can it be that of the Society of St Pius X.  

To assume that Tradition and  Vatican II mutually enlighten each other is but the nonsensical result of blindness, if we listen one last time to Archbishop Lefebvre in his 1966 statement:

“It would be to deny the evidence, to be wilfully blind, not to state courageously that the Council has allowed those who profess the errors and tendencies condemned by the Popes named above, legitimately to believe that their doctrines were approved and sanctioned.”

Pure modernism.  Not fit for any Catholic, much less a "Pious Union" who claims Pope St. Pius X as its holy patron.  Sadly, it appears that the principles of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ have found their way into the SSPX.      

“ The whole Tradition of the Catholic faith should be the criterion and guide for understanding the teachings of Vatican II, which, in turn, sheds light upon certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, which are implicitly present in Her, but not yet formulated."

Words used to confound rather than to communicate.

Sound familiar?

"ECCLESIA DEI" JOHN PAUL II, 2 July 1988
"Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church",

The SSPX Menzingen, they went in with guns, they came out with bishops hats!

(Continuation of the same - 3rd part just out today:
http://catholique-refractaire.blogspot.fr/2012/06/analyse-de-la-declaration-doctrinale.html)
...
All the affirmations of the Council being considered as teachings of the Church, the Declaration supports the notion that both Tradition and Vatican II cast light upon each other, which is the same as endorsing the hermeneutic of continuity so dear to Benedict XVI. It remains to assess the realism of this positioning.

Right.  The realism of that positioning is non-existent.  In practice it means exactly the opposite of what Archbishop Lefebvre understood.  Whatever in tradition contradicts V2 is dismissed as "one-sided", non-infallible, or simply ignored.  The hermeneutic of continuity means that the entire Catholic tradition is reduced to being a proof text of V2's modernism.  It is very easy to get away with too because the vast majority of the human race is now convinced that evolution is true and that newer is better and that previous generations were inferior and ignorant.  So if there is any contradiction, the newer V2 teaching always wins.  Previous popes were simply ignorant and/or blinded by the historical context in which they lived.  Of course Pope Benedict has it exactly upside down.  He is the one who is blinded by his historical context.

Orinoco, you've done a bang-up job with this -- thank you very much!

And everyone's comments are right on the money.

Something is really rotten in Menzingen. Really rotten.

I'm having flashbacks to Vatican II: this is the same old story!!!

If we don't step up and fill the shoes of Archbishop Lefebvre, our children's
children will have some very tough questions for us!

I'd really like to get into all the specifics in this, but to be honest, it makes me sick.

I greatly sympathize with the 3 bishops who have been coping with this sickness
for a long time, now. Their lives are a living penance. Does that even seem to
matter to the Menzingen Menace?

This is a great lesson in the SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS of Modernism. Our Lord gave
us some good words for the wise, which must have seemed a bit cryptic at the
time, but in today's context, they are words of comfort for those with ears to hear:

Matt xv. 1 Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: ...

6 you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition.

7 Hypocrites. Well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying:

8 This people honoreth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me.

9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.

xvii. 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels:
and then will he render to every man according to his works.

28 Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not
taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

"Contrary to public statements given by Bishop Fellay and reported by DICI on 8th June that he had no knowledge of a timetable and did not know what to expect from the amended preamble presented to the CDF on 14th April 2012, Catholique Refractaire reports that Fr. Nely revealed that Bishop Fellay had already been informed by the Vatican that his ambiguous Conciliar-leaning text was entirely acceptable and would be accepted by Rome without modification.

"When Bishop Fellay, accompanied by Fr. Pfluger, arrived at the CDF offices on 13th June 2012 he arrived with given assurance and confidence that he would be jointly signing a deal with Rome."

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Nely-Suresnes-Dinner-Speech

Is there any evidence that Bishop Fellay is being blackmailed? Has this Krah and others tricked him or is he just theologically weak enough to accept compromise? It's all very disturbing.